The FCC's Net Neutrality Sellout: A Wakeup Call And A Slap In The Face

[Albino Boo]

You make it sound like the streaming companies get free internet, rather than already having to pay an ISP / HOST for the bandwidth their customers download. (Do you not know that web hosting companies charge by the amount a site uploads?)

The ISPs want the streaming companies to pay to send the content AND for their customers to pay again to receive the content (ie pay twice for the same bandwidth).

You also fail to understand that the major reason people pay more for broadband connections is the content.

The content providers pay for their connection to the backbone and the consumer pays for their connection to the ISP. The cost comes from upgrading the bit between the two. Streaming requires higher bandwidth and further growth of streaming services requires investment in greater bandwidth in the backbone. This additional cost is not priced into current payment structures.

You are ignoring that the corporations will be able to pay the extra amount for fast routing to their customers.

The big losers in this will be small business and start-ups, who cannot yet afford to pay extra, and so will not get customers (because of the degraded quality of service).

This means the next big internet start-ups will probably not be American based (or deliver content for American audiences/tastes).

You will not make enough money from additional bandwidth because the current prices do include the cost of paying for additional infrastructure. Furthermore there is no point in streaming content from outside the US if the US infrastructure is incapable of handling the bandwidth. For expansion of streaming services to be viable you need to spend money on new large scale fiber connections between cites within the US because the current backbone will run out of bandwidth within the next 10 years.

 

[TechNoFear]

The content providers pay for their connection to the backbone and the consumer pays for their connection to the ISP.

And the content provider also pays per Gb sent across the whole network (to their hosting company).

The cost comes from upgrading the bit between the two.

Cost to whom?

And exactly which bit of the internet is between the backbone and the ISP?

Streaming requires higher bandwidth and further growth of streaming services requires investment in greater bandwidth in the backbone.

Most contention is at the local level (exchange / GPON / DSLAM) not within the backbone.

All it requires to upgrade the backbone is to install more GPONs on current 'dark fibre' or upgrade the actual GPON ternminating equipment (ie most GPONs currently run at 2.5Gbps but 10Gbps and 40Gbps are now available.)

This additional cost is not priced into current payment structures.

Yes it is. None of these companies spent billions building these networks without very specific ROIs and CBAs.

lets say we accept your premise;
Why do the laws governing network neutrality have to change because a commercial company failed due diligence when creating their business model?

Shouldn't we just let the free market sort it out, instead of government stepping in and forcing the financial burden on other unrelated business?

You will not make enough money from additional bandwidth because the current prices do include the cost of paying for additional infrastructure.

Citation required.

Furthermore there is no point in streaming content from outside the US if the US infrastructure is incapable of handling the bandwidth.

Why will content providers PAY EXTRA to send content to the US (irregardless of the networks capacity)?

 

[Albino Boo]

The content providers pay for their connection to the backbone and the consumer pays for their connection to the ISP.

And the content provider also pays per Gb sent across the whole network (to their hosting company).

The cost comes from upgrading the bit between the two.

Cost to whom?

And exactly which bit of the internet is between the backbone and the ISP?

Streaming requires higher bandwidth and further growth of streaming services requires investment in greater bandwidth in the backbone.

Most contention is at the local level (exchange / GPON / DSLAM) not within the backbone.

All it requires to upgrade the backbone is to install more GPONs on current 'dark fibre' or upgrade the actual GPON ternminating equipment (ie most GPONs currently run at 2.5Gbps but 10Gbps and 40Gbps are now available.)

This additional cost is not priced into current payment structures.

Yes it is. None of these companies spent billions building these networks without very specific ROIs and CBAs.

lets say we accept your premise;
Why do the laws governing network neutrality have to change because a commercial company failed due diligence when creating their business model?

Shouldn't we just let the free market sort it out, instead of government stepping in and forcing the financial burden on other unrelated business?

You will not make enough money from additional bandwidth because the current prices do include the cost of paying for additional infrastructure.

Citation required.

Furthermore there is no point in streaming content from outside the US if the US infrastructure is incapable of handling the bandwidth.

Why will content providers PAY EXTRA to send content to the US (irregardless of the networks capacity)?

To be honest, I almost didn't post a reply because you didn't comprehend a word a wrote. The current pricing structure does not include money for capital investment in more bandwidth in the US internet backbone. The whole net neutrality is about who pays the capital cost of that upgrade. It does not matter where you source your content if the backbone can not handle the amount streaming content. If you can't get enough data to the customer then you can't stream. You can set a streaming business in Brazil but if your customer in the US has to wait 25 minutes after pressing play because of lack of bandwidth you won't have many. Not having net neutrality means the streaming companies can have their traffic prioritised in the backbone so you dont have to wait 25 minutes. This means the isps have additional funding from which to afford new capital investment in the backbone. Currently the capital cost of the upgrade offers a rate of return which can easily matched by other lower risk investments. If you have two choices of where to put your money, one has 3% chance of going wrong and the other had a 7% chance of going wrong and both made you the same money you chose the 3% risk.

 

[deathjavu]

The content providers pay for their connection to the backbone and the consumer pays for their connection to the ISP.

And the content provider also pays per Gb sent across the whole network (to their hosting company).

The cost comes from upgrading the bit between the two.

Cost to whom?

And exactly which bit of the internet is between the backbone and the ISP?

Streaming requires higher bandwidth and further growth of streaming services requires investment in greater bandwidth in the backbone.

Most contention is at the local level (exchange / GPON / DSLAM) not within the backbone.

All it requires to upgrade the backbone is to install more GPONs on current 'dark fibre' or upgrade the actual GPON ternminating equipment (ie most GPONs currently run at 2.5Gbps but 10Gbps and 40Gbps are now available.)

This additional cost is not priced into current payment structures.

Yes it is. None of these companies spent billions building these networks without very specific ROIs and CBAs.

lets say we accept your premise;
Why do the laws governing network neutrality have to change because a commercial company failed due diligence when creating their business model?

Shouldn't we just let the free market sort it out, instead of government stepping in and forcing the financial burden on other unrelated business?

You will not make enough money from additional bandwidth because the current prices do include the cost of paying for additional infrastructure.

Citation required.

Furthermore there is no point in streaming content from outside the US if the US infrastructure is incapable of handling the bandwidth.

Why will content providers PAY EXTRA to send content to the US (irregardless of the networks capacity)?

To be honest, I almost didn't post a reply because you didn't comprehend a word a wrote. The current pricing structure does not include money for capital investment in more bandwidth in the US internet backbone. The whole net neutrality is about who pays the capital cost of that upgrade. It does not matter where you source your content if the backbone can not handle the amount streaming content. If you can't get enough data to the customer then you can't stream. You can set a streaming business in Brazil but if your customer in the US has to wait 25 minutes after pressing play because of lack of bandwidth you won't have many. Not having net neutrality means the streaming companies can have their traffic prioritised in the backbone so you dont have to wait 25 minutes. This means the isps have additional funding from which to afford new capital investment in the backbone. Currently the capital cost of the upgrade offers a rate of return which can easily matched by other lower risk investments. If you have two choices of where to put your money, one has 3% chance of going wrong and the other had a 7% chance of going wrong and both made you the same money you chose the 3% risk.

Pardon my french, but, bullshit. The money's there in the current pricing structure, the ISPs are just refusing to spend it.

There are other countries that offer cheaper (per mb/s), better internet that are still upgrading their capacities faster than the US without utilizing pricing options like this, and not just places with incredibly high population densities. If the US can't keep up with the internet pricing and speeds of Russia, a far larger country with endemic corruption, it's time to figure out where the model is broken.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Yeah, these new rules seem like forcing the Internet to behave like Ye Olde cable t.v packages. I bet Netflix subscription numbers are going to drop like a ton of bricks. And more people will turn to pirating rather than choosing to get screwed over.

That's not even the biggest concern.

It shits all over small businesses, especially the web-based ones, and puts a hard cap on their growth. It opens the possibility of legal outright censorship of the internet. It incentivizes ISPs to provide an inferior service at a higher price.

Long story short, the loss of net neutrality is a fucking disaster and Wheeler needs to be punched in the dick by a horde of angry midgets.

And the economy is in bad enough shape as it is. This will only further damage it in all kinds of different ways. What dickhead Wheeler is trying to accomplish should be considered criminal and I'm still seething with anger over it.

This is a good AMA thread at reddit with Josh Levy from Free Press, David Segal from Demand Progress, Amalia Deloney of Center for Media Justice, First Amendment lawyer Marvin Ammori & Sarah Morris of Open Technology Institute.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23vddm/we_are_fighting_to_restore_net_neutrality_ask_us/

Call your Senators and Representatives and tell them you want the FCC to classify broadband Access as a "Title II telecommunications service."

I have never done anything like this before but this is really important guys so if each one of us do this then we can at least make our voice heard and possibly save this sinking ship. Now's not the time to be cynical. Lets rally and try to save the internet. It's not just about cat videos after all, it's about freedom of speech, innovation, our economy and so much more.

 

[JET1971]

I don't have an issue with internet packages that you pay for a max amount of bandwidth such as the super cheap package at 25mbs the next package at 50mbs and the premium at 100mbs as long as it is guaranteed you will receive the bandwidth regardless of everyone else in the local network and you are free to use the bandwidth you pay for to download and upload anything you want. Laws like that would be beneficial in a way for the customer because you will get what you are paying for unlike the fake amount we get now like my 50mbs internet that averages 32mbs between 3 and 4 am when the vast majority of people are asleep and averages 32mbs the other 23 hours. So they are saying I can get 50mbs but I am really throttled at 32. This is what the FCC should be doing and not giving them the right to throttle for using one particular website over one they would prefer. And by saying we can get X bandwidth but we never see it is blatant false advertising.

As fior all this bullcrap about Netflix and other streaming services eating all the bandwidth, we the users are paying for the bandwidth and if a large portion of those users are using those services then that is what they choose to use the bandwidth they pay for on. If you are running out of bandwidth for your customers then you need to lay more fiber and build the infrastructure to support the amount of customers, it is not the customers fault that they choose to not invest in basic infrastructure, it is not the services being used fault either. it is the cable and phone companies fault for not investing in their own future instead of just the greed now and let the future worry about it when it comes to a head.

If they can make a profit when they first added the infrastructure in the 70's and 80's they can make a profit and upgrade the infrastructure today. Fuck cable companies profit without upgrading, that's what my cable bill is for paying for the service AND maintaining/upgrading the infrastructure that provides it.

 

[RJ 17]

Fair enough, I kind of understood why he stepped back from the health care debate, but I was pretty busy blaming that entire thing and the first two years in general on Harry Reid being unable to get shit done with 60 votes at his back.

Definitely some blame goes to him as well. Basically, democratic leadership is painfully risk-averse and spineless every time it counts. Also, Reid shouldn't have needed 60 votes, but his painful refusal to reform the filibuster - not to mention his willingness to play charlie brown again and again and again and never learn that the football was going to be snatched away - allowed republicans and a couple of sellout democrats to dictate terms. Idiot. Still, I blame Obama too, since all the things he did have under his control have also been painfully compromised.

Just don't say that as though the Republicans are doing anything worth a damn either. They've had plenty of opportunities to capitalize on mistakes that the administration has made and yet every time they simply back off for fear of being called a bunch of hate-mongering bigots because they dared to disagree with a black president.

Spoiler: When it is all said and done, the Dem vs Rep side of politics in America can best be represented as such:

Captcha: "Filthy Rich"

...you know, sometimes I hate it when you're on-topic, Captcha...

 

[TechNoFear]

To be honest, I almost didn't post a reply because you didn't comprehend a word a wrote.

I did understand what you wrote, I was trying to point out that you have based your opinion on an incorrect premise; that the backbone is not part of the ISPs network (and that CAPEX to expand the backbone has not been budgeted for).

You also assume that the content providers will just pay up to serve the US market.

Have you considered what will happen if the content providers (and so their customers) do not pay?

I doubt YouTube will go broke if no one in the US can use it.

It will only be a major loss for the US consumer, not YouTube.

 

[RaikuFA]

I really don't like this. Corporations in charge of the internet is bad news.

But I can't even get any family member to listen to me, how do you think it's gonna be getting a senator to listen to me.